STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MUKAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which granted a certificate under Art. 133(1) (c).

(2.) One Mukanchand, respondent No. 1 in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) obtained a mortgage decree on February 12, 1954, for Rs. 1,14,581/14/6, with further interest at 6% per annum, against one Rao Raja Inder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtor). The mortgage money was advanced under three mortgages, and the mortgaged properties consisted of 2 jagirs and some non-jagir immovable property. The latter property was sold in execution and Rs. 33,750/- paid to the decree-holder in partial satisfaction of the decree. On December 14, 1956, the decree-holder filed an execution petition in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, for Rs. 99, 965/3/6, praying for attachment of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant which would be paid to the judgment debtor on account of resumption of his jagir. This case was registered as Execution Case No. 12/57. On July 29, 1957, the judgment-debtor made an application before the District Judge, Jodhpur, to the effect that the decretal amount should be reduced in accordance with S. 5 of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Reduction Act (Rajasthan Act IX of 1957). On July 31, 1957, the judgment-debtor submitted another application claiming that only half of his total jagir compensation and rehabilitation grant money was liable to attachment under S. 7 of the said Act. The decree holder, in his reply to those petitions, urged that the provisions relied on were ultra vires the Constitution of India, being in contravention of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.

(3.) On December 3, 1957, the decree-holder filed a petition under Art. 228 of the Constitution, praying that the execution case No. 12 of 1957, pending in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, be withdrawn from that Court to the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court transferred the case to its file, and thereafter issued notice to the State of Rajasthan, as the constitutionality of the said Act had been challenged. By its judgment, the High Court held that apart from the latter part of S. 2 (e) excluding certain debts - hereinafter referred to as the impugned part - and S. 7 (2) of the Act, the rest of the Act was valid. The State applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and so did the decree-holder. On the certificates being granted, two appeals were filed in this Court. The appeal of Mukanchand (Civil Appeal No. 508/61) was by order dated April 23, 1962, of this Court, held to have abated. Therefore, we are not concerned with the validity of the other provisions of the Act.